Loading...
2024-02-14 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Hybrid Meeting February 14, 2024 Chair Mitchell called the hybrid meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. at Edmonds City Hall and on Zoom. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES The Land Acknowledgement was read by Student Representative Distelhorst Board Members Present Jeremy Mitchell, Chair Lauren Golembiewski, Vice Chair Judi Gladstone Richard Kuehn (online) Nick Maxwell (online) Emily Nutsch (alternate) (online) Lily Distelhorst (student rep) Board Members Absent Susanna Martini (excused) Staff Present Susan McLaughlin, Development Services Director Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Jeff Levy, Senior Planner Navyusha Pentakota, Urban Design Planner Consultants: Kate Howe, VIA Perkins Eastman, Principal Shreya Malu, VIA Perkins Eastman, Project Manager Dan Kennedy, VIA Perkins Eastman READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES (January 24, 2024) Board Member Gladstone referred to and read proposed amendments to the January 24 meeting minutes which she had previously sent the group. MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR GOLEMBIEWSKI, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER GLADSTONE, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 24, 2024 WITH THE AMENDMENTS AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Teresa Hollis, Edmonds resident, commented on packet page 75, Alternative B: Distributed Growth scenario. This talks about getting back the transition zones that were lost in 2017 when the Subarea Plan was finalized, and they upzoned nine parcels that were three-story apartment buildings to be 75-foot buildings. She stated that Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 14, 2024 Pagel of 5 the idea of creating transition zones is controversial. The City made a unanimous decision at both the Planning Board and the City Council after 20 years of planning for Highway 99 to have CG all the way to the boundaries. She stated it was not appropriate to come into her neighborhood and take what is now a single-family house and make it available to be a three-story apartment building. She encouraged the City to focus on creating transition through building design such as step backs. The idea of exploring transition zones "inside and outside the plan boundaries" is extremely unpopular. She thanked staff for the great information in the packet. Roizer Pence, former Planning Board member and chair, commented on the 75-page packet which was added to the agenda on Monday night and did not give the Planning Board or the public much time to preview it. He spoke to the importance of engaging the public in conversations about the future of Edmonds in ways such as public open houses. He urged them not to try to include this level of technical information in an online open house. He referred to Teresa Hollis's comments related to block -by -block planning and said that is a function of the subarea planning process which should follow adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. GUla Shoemake asked that as they work on the Comprehensive Plan, they take into account climate change because the crisis is upon us. She urged them to ask themselves how things relate to climate change and if they are including what is needed to make the city and the area ready for what is going to happen. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS None UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Comprehensive Plan Update — Existing Conditions and Growth Alternatives Kate Howe, VIA Perkins Eastman, presented a summary of what they have been doing since they completed the neighborhood meetings in December. She reviewed the importance of and reasons for planning and explained that City of Edmonds' adopted plans and initiatives as well as input from public Comprehensive Plan meetings lend ideas on how to explore future growth. She stressed that with the Comprehensive Plan they are focusing on policy level land use changes and categories, not implementing ordinances, zoning, height, design, etc. She reviewed the 2044 Growth Management Act (GMA) targets for population, jobs capacity, and housing capacity and pointed out that Edmonds needs to plan for an additional 4,000 housing units. Land Use (Growth Alternative) Approaches reviewed included the following: 1. Update City's approach to Single Family Detached to comply with House Bills. 2. Identify and define a set of "Neighborhood Centers" and "Neighborhood Hubs". • Foster 15-minute neighborhoods with public amenities and activities to serve local community. • Enable more equitable distribution of housing in a range of income strategies. 3. Rethink Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center's Land Use policies to encourage uses that contribute to Edmonds' Arts District and downtown local businesses. 4. Explore potential to accommodate growth in the Medical District along the Highway 99 corridor. 5. Evaluation transition zones within the Highway 99 sub -area vicinity. Ms. Howe reviewed the impacts of HB 1110, HB 1337, and HB 1220 on single family zones and planning for Edmonds' housing capacity. She summarized that Edmonds is a high -cost community with high average sale Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 14, 2024 Page 2 of 5 prices for middle housing units. She reviewed a Housing Affordability Distribution table translating housing types to affordability levels based on the Department of Commerce's Guidebook for applying HB 1220. Assuming compliance with all housing bills means that Edmonds' total capacity increase needed is only 2,700 units. She referred to the Methods memo which has much more detailed information about this. Director McLaughlin discussed the Neighborhood Centers and Neighborhood Hubs growth alternative which would foster 15-minute neighborhoods, align with the Climate Action Plan, and create better economic outcomes for more people in more places. Centers and Hubs selection criteria were reviewed as well as prototypical development descriptions and potential land use designations. Strategies designed to secure public benefit from growth could include incentives for bonus heights in exchanges for community amenities. Director McLaughlin reviewed potential alternatives. • No Action — This is not compliant with GMA requirements. The model code put out recently by Washington State has a universal height requirement of 35 feet and would supersede any city that tries to take no action. • Alternative A: Focused Growth — This puts the majority of capacity within the Neighborhood Centers (Firdale Village, Westgate, and Five Corners) and would afford 4-6 stories which includes bonus height incentives. It also includes an expansion to the Medical District. It would have a slight increase in Neighborhood Hub (2-3 stories including bonus height incentives) capacity. There would be good coverage of Edmonds with the 15-minute concept. • Alternative B: Distributed Growth — This also focuses on Neighborhood Hubs and Centers but puts moderate growth within the Neighborhood Centers compared to Alternative A. The allowance would be 4-5 stories within the Neighborhood Centers and 3-4 stories in Neighborhood Hubs. This option does not include the Medical District expansion. Director McLaughlin explained that staff will be analyzing all aspects of these alternatives and articulating impacts in the EIS. From this, they will be able to pick and choose the preferred alternative. She encouraged the Planning Board to provide input on anything that is missing so it may be considered in staff s analysis. The overall target is achievable in both Alternative A and Alternative B. Staff sees a huge benefit to offering development incentives. She reviewed the evaluation framework which includes being consistent with the GMA, PSRC Vision 2050, and Snohomish County countywide planning policies; implementing State housing bills; and creating opportunities for the City to achieve the Community's vision. Planning Board deliberation followed and included questions related to bus lines, policy drivers for the alternatives, consideration of the area around 76th and 196t' for a Hub, how the Highway 99 subarea plan is approached in the alternatives, transition zones, and a desire for more clarity about the future of Highway 99. There were also questions about potential consideration of the corridors approach, how the Waterfront Activity Center fits into the alternatives from an equity perspective, clarification about housing types, and how the land value disparity throughout the city is addressed. There was a comment about how the Edmonds "charm" referred to in the Vision Statement doesn't only exist in the downtown area, a suggestion to increase the number of Hubs around the city in order to keep the building heights down in more places, a suggestion to look at other areas around the city (even if they don't contribute to placemaking) such as the area around Wade James Theater, discussion around the reasons for the expansion of the Medical District versus another Hub, and a reminder of the importance of considering topography when looking at the 15-minute neighborhoods. Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 14, 2024 Page 3 of 5 Draft Area Details: Senior Planner Jeff Levy gave a high-level review of how the policy land use expansion might be approached for the different alternatives in the various Centers and Hubs (Westgate, Five Corners, Medical Center, Firdale, North Bowl, and Perrinville). Deliberation included questions and comments on extent versus height considerations for the Westgate corridor, displacement risks related to Firdale redevelopment, the potential of merging some of the height and extent criteria for different areas, and a suggestion to look at areas where there are schools and parks and where the age of housing is about to turn around. There was also a suggestion to make a pie chart graph or other illustration showing how much capacity and what types of units each area currently has and could potentially take for each of the alternatives. The Board highlighted the need for robust engagement efforts related to the alternatives both online and with neighborhood meetings and asked about how to calculate and communicate impacts of increased density to existing infrastructure. Board members questioned if Comprehensive Plan policies are expected to change and how to look at items a la carte when the EIS needs to look at cumulative effects. The Planning Board expressed appreciation to staff and consultants for their hard work. NEW BUSINESS None SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT None PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA There was agreement to hold a special meeting on the February 28t' at 6:30 p.m. to address a legal topic in Executive Session with the City Attorney prior to the regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. Senior Planner Clugston gave an update on board member replacement efforts and reviewed the extended agenda. On February 28 the Board is expected to have the Executive Session at 6:30 and then a Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit Public Hearing and a discussion on Green Building Incentives. There was discussion about adding updated Comprehensive Plan information to the March 6 retreat in addition to the work plan discussion. There were questions and clarification about the EIS and Comprehensive Plan process/timeline and a suggestion to add a true third alternative. There was a question about if the Planning Board is the best group to be considering the canopy goal. Maybe it is better to leave it to the Tree Board? Director McLaughlin explained why she thought that the Planning Board, Tree Board, and Climate Protection Committee were the appropriate three groups to be working on the tree canopy goal. She also expressed a willingness to develop and work on this through a subcommittee. There was a desire to make sure the Planning Board gets a touch on the alternatives going to be considered in the EIS and agreement to add another update on March 27 in addition to the retreat discussion on March 6. There was a comment that multifamily design standards had fallen off the extended agenda but it could be useful to have it on there because of its influence on discussions about higher densities. It was noted that it was already on the extended agenda but was listed as design standards and process and isn't assigned a date yet. Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 14, 2024 Page 4 of 5 PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Kuehn commended everyone for the great work. Vice Chair Golembiewski wished everyone Happy Valentine's Day. Board Member Gladstone was pleased to be finally working on the Comprehensive Plan update. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Mitchell expressed appreciation to Student Representative Distelhorst for her time and commitment on the Planning Board as this was her last meeting. Thanks to staff and consultants for the great presentation. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 14, 2024 Page 5 of 5